You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Soylent

['Member']Joined: October 26, 2015 at 16:06Last active: April 30, 2019 at 06:555 discussions183 comments
Location: Canada

Bio

I think much more than I speak, and when I do speak, it's utter nonsense.

Favourite Philosopher

The one that makes me murmur to myself, "yeah, that's probably right."

Favourite Quotations

Please don't slow me down if I'm going too fast.

Reptilia - The Strokes

There are no exceptions to the rule that everyone thinks they're an exception to the rule.

- Banksy

L'enfer, c'est les autres

No Exit - Jean Paul Sartre

Discussions (5)

Review an argument

December 10, 2015 at 18:01 53 comments Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics

Comments

In: Moral Vigilantism  — view comment
I'm of the opinion that one ought to obey laws with a threshold of reprehensibility (i.e., threat to safety and survival), at which point one ought to...
March 16, 2016 at 18:31
In: Political Affiliation (Discussion)  — view comment
Your answer, as well written as it is, only reaffirms the presupposition in the performative significance. If personhood (or marriage) is not presuppo...
March 11, 2016 at 15:44
In: Political Affiliation (Discussion)  — view comment
Is there an argument in favour of viewing personhood as a categorical distinction as opposed to a matter of degree, or are you presupposing that posit...
March 10, 2016 at 21:34
In: Political Affiliation (Discussion)  — view comment
That may not be true. Our economy has made it easy to get a gun if desired, but we could make it considerably harder if needed.
March 07, 2016 at 15:01
In: Political Affiliation (Discussion)  — view comment
If you can't defeat a position, at least disarm it with absurdity. I'm just fooling around. It's important to keep a sense of humour, even about topic...
March 03, 2016 at 16:18
In: Political Affiliation  — view comment
Generalized label - Liberal (Canada) Form of government- i) Benevolent dictator ii) Direct democracy. Form of economy - Extreme on either side, favour...
February 29, 2016 at 21:22
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
That doesn't seem right. *edit I apologize for my brevity; it's more of a place holder while I collect my thoughts. I'm a slow thinker, but wanted to ...
February 17, 2016 at 17:32
In: Re: that other place ...  — view comment
...but this is the best of all possible worlds. Isn't it?
February 12, 2016 at 18:29
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
This feels like a faulty analogy as well. The manipulation of a chess board to produce legal moves would include rules about situational moves implici...
February 12, 2016 at 17:25
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
That you cite an example of programming gone wrong might handicap rather than help your cause. When everything goes as it should there is mystery, but...
February 12, 2016 at 17:19
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
This cuts both ways though, do humans/animals do something more than produce a programmed/hard-wired output in the proper situations? Computers and ro...
February 11, 2016 at 21:31
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
You're shifting the terms of understanding. If understanding is granted to the system for the accurate manipulation of the symbols, then human underst...
February 10, 2016 at 21:12
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
This seems question-begging. I just don't see how the Chinese Room demonstrates one way or the other that humans understand symbols in a different way...
February 10, 2016 at 18:27
In: Martha the Symbol Transformer  — view comment
Forgive my ignorance, but my initial reaction was that the "systems reply" was still suitable. The symbol manipulation has to be meaningful to someone...
February 10, 2016 at 18:11
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
Addendum: For my own self-identification it would be better to stick with "weak anti-natalism" by virtue of my reproductive success. Since I have chil...
February 09, 2016 at 20:35
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
This might get into territory that Thorongil is more suited to defend. It seems that anatalism, borrowing from weak anti-natalism, doesn't commit one ...
February 09, 2016 at 19:54
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
It would matter a great deal what fuels the doubt. Doubt about the justification for natalism might be expressed as nihilism or another meta-ethical f...
February 09, 2016 at 17:51
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
Yes you can, because not having children may also be permissible. Anti-natalism would seem to assert that having children is impermissible, or that "o...
February 09, 2016 at 16:55
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
If "justified" is understood as an obligation, then it's inconsistent to believe, "one ought to have children", and then act in a way contrary to that...
February 09, 2016 at 16:31
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
I don't think the celibacy and the weak anti-natalism inform each other. They are different commitments that are cashed out as the same behavioural up...
February 04, 2016 at 14:41
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
I understand the difference, I was also trying to understand Thorongil's position in relation to anatalism. I understood the celibacy comment to descr...
February 03, 2016 at 21:42
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
Which is why I think Thorongil settled on anatalism to describe the weak "anti-natalist" position. I think it would be analogous to calling a person w...
February 03, 2016 at 19:01
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
I took the relationship between celibacy and weak anti-natalism in @"Thorongil"'s post to be one of indistinguishability in behavioural commitments, b...
February 03, 2016 at 16:52
In: Blast techno-optimism  — view comment
Gene theory is a significant discovery that has yet to see the advancements to the degree the others have on your list (I would distinguish it from Ge...
February 03, 2016 at 15:11
In: Why I no longer identify as an anti-natalist  — view comment
The other 50% end in the death of one spouse, which sounds more disastrous without proper context.* *edit @"Bitter Crank"'s response undermines my sas...
February 01, 2016 at 21:38
In: Is omniscience coherent?  — view comment
Per the link provided: A limiting condition of omniscience is knowing all that is knowable. If one's own state of omniscience is unknowable, then one ...
January 27, 2016 at 16:40
In: Is omniscience coherent?  — view comment
I did know, but I also knew that posting anyways and asking for it to be deleted was better than not posting it in the first place in order to elicit ...
January 26, 2016 at 21:41
In: On Wittgenstein's Quietism and the possibility of philosophical certainty  — view comment
I wonder if you're going too far the other way, in particular with the judgement of "undue". It's not entirely obvious to me whether the priority of r...
January 26, 2016 at 15:30
In: The difference between a metaphysical and a religious narrative  — view comment
It might be helpful if you begin by saying what you think is the difference and at least provide an idea of what you understand the words to mean asid...
January 20, 2016 at 14:43
In: Climate change deniers as flat-landers.  — view comment
Our duties to future generations are limited by the length of the causal chain between our actions and the outcome. If the causal chain is long and th...
January 14, 2016 at 15:23
In: How do you deal with the fact that very smart people disagree with you?  — view comment
Knowledge of God, including but not limited to whether God exists, can be acquired through a divine knowing event. Knowledge of God can be satisfied i...
January 14, 2016 at 14:57
In: How do you deal with the fact that very smart people disagree with you?  — view comment
This doesn't make much sense in light of your statement, How can a form of agnosticism claim knowledge when the word means, "without knowledge"? Versi...
January 13, 2016 at 20:27
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
1. X is a bachelor, and is therefore an unmarried man. 2. X is bachelor, and is unmarried if and only if X never marries. By your contention, 2 is fal...
January 07, 2016 at 14:50
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
The logical equivalence must not introduce new terms. "wrong to x" is only logically equivalent to "ought not x". The introduction of prevention is im...
January 07, 2016 at 14:12
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
No it's not: P15 If it is wrong to allow gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices and gratuitous suffering caused by food production p...
January 07, 2016 at 13:55
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
I'm going to try a different approach since I think I partially see what you're saying. This is what I want P15 to say, and it may or may not dependin...
January 07, 2016 at 13:45
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
A preliminary thought is that 1 and 2 are functionally indistinguishable and by the principle of identity of indiscernibility I need not commit to the...
January 07, 2016 at 03:29
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
I see your point now and will take some time to give it proper consideration.
January 07, 2016 at 03:14
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
I noticed that I inverted the antecedent and the consequent. I apologize. The correct version is below: 1. If one is an unmarried man, then one is a b...
January 07, 2016 at 02:49
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
If there's one condition, then "therefore not conditionally" is false. I would say it's more akin to: 1. If one is a bachelor, then one is an unmarrie...
January 07, 2016 at 02:33
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
1. Gratuitous suffering, by definition, is preventable simply by virtue of being gratuitous suffering (and therefore not conditionally) The bolded is ...
January 07, 2016 at 02:05
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
I've addressed your criticism of P6 elsewhere and since P6 remains unchanged my response elsewhere is still applicable. If you feel your objection to ...
January 07, 2016 at 01:08
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
P15 is of the form: If ¬Pa (= O¬a) and ¬a = b and c then, d ¬Pa is true by definition b is true by empirical evidence c is true by supportive argument...
January 07, 2016 at 00:33
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
Let's repurpose your example of transitivity in action. Let: a = 2>1 b = 3>2 c = 3>1 If a and b, then c What justifies c? Either modus ponens (the aff...
January 07, 2016 at 00:01
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
d is a term and not a predicate statement. The predicate statement contained in d follows from the transitive property. The content of d is contained ...
January 06, 2016 at 21:41
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
No, I said "d follows from the transitive property", which is not the same as saying "d follows from the antecedent". d has a unique feature which mak...
January 06, 2016 at 21:21
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
I have no idea what you're looking for so until one of us figures out what the other is trying to say, we might be at an impasse.
January 06, 2016 at 20:51
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
Let: a = allow gratuitous suffering caused by food production practices b = it is possible for some agents to adopt a vegan diet c = there are those w...
January 06, 2016 at 20:42
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
The same way one might defend other implications: analysis of terms, empirical observation, supportive arguments, faith or wishful thinking.
January 06, 2016 at 20:19
In: Spin-off of Vegan Argument  — view comment
P14 is NOT an argument, it is a premise.
January 06, 2016 at 20:05
⇧